Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Fox2_Fox2 t1_jece1o7 wrote

I guess some of the laidoff employees will go to Virgin Galactic in Mojave or down the road to Tustin, where the VG facilities are.

100

Ghost_of_Cambridge t1_jecgwyl wrote

How about: “Company that is a totally pointless dick-swinging circle-jerk waste of resources finally admits defeat in the face of global late-stage capitalist collapse, to the surprise of basically nobody.”

62

BergaGaming t1_jecmkub wrote

Replying to Ghost_of_Cambridge (#2,507,668)

VO was a little bit less of a dick swing than galactic.

For example they actually flew paying payloads in a reasonable amount of time, galactic is yet to fly people outside of testing (pilots and that Branson flight)

Obviously still a dick swing but actually did something, just not having enough benefits over the likes of RocketLab, Astra, SpaceX, ect

46

Fox2_Fox2 t1_jecyr1r wrote

Replying to SquizzOC (#2,512,420)

VG opened the Tustin facility about a year ago or so. I guess they couldn’t attract enough people to go to Mojave so they had to open a place in civilization to attract talents. Just my guess. Nice facility in Tustin with some extra perks like some tech companies.

12

deuteranomalous1 t1_jed4ybl wrote

That’s disappointing but not surprising given all the failures.

2

Hbirdee t1_jed9cfq wrote

Replying to Fox2_Fox2 (#2,506,882)

No more Virgin in Mojave for the most part now, they have to work remote or go to Truth or Consequences, NM if they’ve been there for 2+ years. Just happened super recently. Some folks defected to other companies at the airport.

14

Fox2_Fox2 t1_jedanao wrote

Replying to Hbirdee (#2,515,561)

Oh man…. Mojave was bad enough. TOC in NM is even worse. A friend of mine was offered a job in Mojave but was told before starting that he had to go to TOC. He quit instead.

9

AnnexBlaster t1_jedgd4t wrote

Rocketlab is the best space company on the market in my opinion, rn the stock is hot garbage but at $4 you could imagine what it would look like in 10-20 years

7

disengaged22 t1_jediyfl wrote

Well fuck. I actually believed the company had a chance. Lost more than I care to admit

10

Biggu5Dicku5 t1_jedq6ru wrote

We have far too many terrestrial problems right now to concern ourselves with civilian space flights...

−11

Hey-StopIt t1_jedu9si wrote

As an aerospace student, I think I now understand why they never responded to my internship applications…

19

Yarddogkodabear t1_jedwepq wrote

It was a massive bet to gain access to a military budget.

Musk and Bessos both got access to that Money. They put their faces on space tech just like a financial portfolio.

−1

Uzza2 t1_jedwsr6 wrote

Replying to AnnexBlaster (#2,517,369)

While Rocketlab is doing impressive stuff in the small launch market, and is actually trying to be competitive in the future with Neutron, I don't see how they can be called the best space company when SpaceX exists.
There exists basically no real competitors to what SpaceX is doing right now, and the work they've done on reusability in the past 10 years has done more to advance spaceflight than anyone else the past 40 years.
Starship is going to be an even bigger jump, and I don't think people realize just how big of an impact it is going to have.

15

ACCount82 t1_jedyodr wrote

Replying to Uzza2 (#2,521,113)

>I don't see how they can be called the best space company when SpaceX exists.

If "the market" in "the best company on the market" refers to the stock market, then it makes some sense. SpaceX isn't publicly traded.

I would be reluctant to invest into any of those "new space" companies myself though. First, space is hard - so many of those who only started out now are likely run out of funding before they make a single cent of profit on their launches. Second: SpaceX is the industry's mad titan. So much of the space industry now exists in the realm of "SpaceX hasn't gotten around to killing them yet".

12

quettil t1_jee3hvf wrote

I don't get it, according to Reddit, Spacex is only successful because Elon musk (the spoilt, lazy billionaire who knows nothing about rockets) hired smart engineers to do the work.

So why didn't Branson (another billionaire) just hire smart people?

0

essaitchthrowaway3 t1_jee90g8 wrote

Is there a non-paywall version of that article?

I'm just curious what the difference is between Virgin Orbit and Virgin Galactic?

6

Noncivilian_ t1_jeedzn4 wrote

I can fly the planes too just make sure there non military

1

Glissssy t1_jeeeu8x wrote

Virgin very obviously backed the wrong horse many years (decades?, cant remember) ago and seem to have solely survived on ignorant journalists constantly hyping them for no obvious reason.

I doubt any smart money has been spent on them in some time and apparently the whole charade could only be exposed by a series of very high profile failures.

They've never had a product that made any sense, assume VG will go down the pan too since they're once again trying to sell something that doesn't even deliver the most basic requirement to a very tiny market.

1

jivatman t1_jeemyiq wrote

Replying to ACCount82 (#2,521,553)

Some of the Spacecraft companies are interesting, and they largely do very different things so don't directly compete. Blacksky, Maxar, Planet etc.

SpaceX bringing down the cost of putting things into orbit, even moreso with Starship, should actually be good for these companies.

I absolutely would not invest in any launch company other than SpaceX though. Not even Rocketlab, which I think will survive but not do crazy well.

2

ACCount82 t1_jeeyno7 wrote

Replying to jivatman (#2,528,983)

The thing with Maxar, etc, is the question: what happens if SpaceX just decides to add an extra Earth-facing sensor bay to every single new Starlink sat?

Because the next step for SpaceX would be to start putting hardware that directly undercuts Maxar and others into those bays. Anyone who's doing smallsats should be extremely concerned by the possibility.

SpaceX is already getting in on that MIC game with Starshield - a series of customizable Starlink-derived sats that SpaceX has reportedly offered to Pentagon at bargain prices. So they clearly are trying to get into new market segments, and they aren't subtle about it.

1

ArmsForPeace84 t1_jefiwfr wrote

Replying to LloydAtkinson (#2,524,634)

Well, they're each designed around very different payloads and capabilities. Very different risk profiles. With the space tourism side able to sell tickets FAR in advance due to facing little competition in the space tourism business, while the payload to orbit business is already competitive and growing more so.

The only benefit I saw in their even getting involved in orbital missions is to, if it worked and could turn a profit, help grow their experience with orbital flights in hopes of one day carrying passengers and not just satellites. Selling these costlier, but also far more enticing, excursions to future space tourists.

7

dangerbird2 t1_jefwkus wrote

Replying to ArmsForPeace84 (#2,539,486)

The problem with virgin orbital is that they did exclusively air-launched rockets, which have a hard limit on the payload size that makes manned flight pretty much impossible (i.e. if it won't fit under a 747 wing, it won't fly). Moreover, air-launched rockets have been all but obsolete ever since Space-X and Rocket Lab have proved first-stage recovery to be reliable and extremely economical.

3

ArmsForPeace84 t1_jeg3b0z wrote

Replying to dangerbird2 (#2,543,743)

Agreed. Turning a profit from air-launched rockets is impossible with launch prices having fallen so dramatically with the arrival of Falcon 9, in particular.

There might yet be a market for soft-ride orbital spaceplanes that launch like this, or even from a runway. As opposed to "mere" hypersonic airliners.

But I wouldn't bet any of my own money on seeing these emerge by even 2050.

1